Smt. Gorantla Jhansi Lakshmi v. The District Collector, East Godavari District

Telangana HC28 Aug 2012WA/677/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the Single Judge's order dismissing writ petitions challenging the change in alignment for an approach road. The court held acquisition proceedings were finalized, no interference was warranted, and affirmed the award validity while granting liberty regarding compensation claims.

What did the court decide?

Affirmed Single Judge's dismissal of writ petitions; liberty granted to apply for compensation review.

Smt. Gorantla Jhansi Lakshmi Vs The District Collector… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

Writ Appeal Nos. 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683 and 711 of 2011

¶4

DATED:28.08.2012

¶5

Between: Sri Kantipudi Sarvarayudu and others. … Appellants And

¶6

The District Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District at Kakinada and others.

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶10

Writ Appeal Nos. 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683 and 711 of 2011

¶11

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶12

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

These writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 21.7.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 10668, 11476, 12938, 12979, 17736, 15221 of 2007; 18266, 17263 and 20288 of 2008.

¶14

The appellants-writ petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petitions praying for a Mandamus to declare the proposed action of the respondents in changing the original alignment drawings and in trying to take possession of the lands of the petitioners without following the due process of law for the purpose of laying approach road or any other purpose as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellants-writ petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to cancel the changes which are sought to be made to the original alignment of the approach road.

¶15

All the writ petitions were heard by the Hon’ble Single Judge

¶16

and His Lordship disposed of the writ petitions by a common order.

¶17

The main points which were urged before the Hon’ble Single Judge were that the respondents have changed the alignment of the approach road, as a result of which, the appellants-writ petitioners are being deprived of their valuable lands; that the respondents have failed to follow the mandatory guidelines published by the Indian Road Congress (I.R.C.) while fixing the alignment and lastly that the Land Acquisition Officer failed to follow fair procedure in holding enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶18

The Hon’ble Single Judge after perusing the entire material on record, held that the respondents duly considered the reports prepared by the Consultant after carrying out investigations at different stages and a random examination of the record of the respondent-authorities would show that the inspection report prepared in December, 2005 made a reference to the proposed new bridge and approach road on the Rajahmundry and Kovvur side in the said report. The objective of such Consultancy Service has also been mentioned therein. The final report was also considered by His Lordship. In those circumstances, His Lordship held that the appellants-writ petitioners failed to substantiate their plea that the respondents have failed to follow the mandatory guidelines published by I.R.C. while fixing the alignment. Further, the decision making process which has been adopted by the respondent-authorities has also been considered by His Lordship and His Lordship held against the appellants-writ petitioners. His

¶19

Lordship also considered the question whether the project was undertaken in public interest and for public purpose, and held the said point in favour of the respondent-authorities. With regard to the question of following fair procedure in holding an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is concerned, His Lordship held that even if such a plea is accepted by the Court, no purpose will be served in directing the respondents to hold an enquiry afresh. His Lordship further observed that once the alignment cannot be interfered with, the acquisition proceedings cannot be set at naught on any other ground. Hence, it has been held that it is an empty formality if a fresh enquiry under Section 5-A is directed to be held on the given facts.

¶20

The Hon’ble Single Judge also took note of the order passed by the Court, on an earlier occasion, in Writ Petition Nos. 18657 and 18671 of 2009, which were filed questioning the alignment and notification dated 20.10.2008 with regard to the proposed bridge and approach road on the other side of Kovvur side. The Hon’ble Single Judge also took into consideration the observation made by this Court in those writ petitions where the Court held that “the alignment of the link road was changed to protect the interest of certain land owners cannot be accepted”.

¶21

Under those circumstances, the Hon’ble Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the batch of writ petitions, mentioned above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, these writ appeals have been filed by the appellants-writ petitioners.

¶22

All the contentions which were put forth before the Hon’ble Single Judge were reiterated before us by Sri G. Vidaya Sagar,

¶23

learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel vehemently contended that even today, no bridge has been constructed by the respondent-authorities in spite of acquisition of the lands of the appellants-writ petitioners.

¶24

Even if we accept such submission made on behalf of the appellants-writ petitioners, it is not in dispute that the award has already been published in the matter. Once the award has been published, the acquisition process is stated to be closed for all purposes. The right of the appellants-writ petitioners would then be with regard to the compensation awarded in their favour. Therefore, it is for them to accept the compensation so awarded or they can take necessary steps to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.

¶25

We have also verified and found that from the records and the material placed before us that there is no change in the alignment of the approach road and out the two options which have been specifically stated in the report, one option has been exercised and the same does not call for any interference by the Court. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Accordingly, we affirm the same.

¶26

However, we grant liberty to the appellants-writ petitioners to apply before the appropriate forum in respect of the compensation, if they are so advised in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶27

The writ appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶28

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶29

______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 28-8-2012 pnb

Smt. Gorantla Jhansi Lakshmi v. The District Collector, East Godavari District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gorantla Jhansi Lakshmi v. The District Collector, East Godavari District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Forum for a Better Hyderabad,rep.byi ts Secretary Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

G. Bala Raju, Vs The Government of A.P.

The Secretary Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Childrens Park Vs The District Collector

Ranikreddy Mahalaksmi Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District at

Sri Koripella Sai Lashmana Rao, Vs The District Collector

B. Kameswara Rao Vs The District Collector